If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Started Reading the Communist Manifeso

Very interesting, I had not considered that the Bourgeoisie actually gives the proletariat all the tools it needs to destroy itself. Also I have a greater understanding of how the bourgeoisie was a necessary step from feudalism.

Also Karl Marx is dead right on conservationism, his words on it are as true as they were when he wrote them, if not more so.

I believe for communism to truly work you need to have a capitalism to support it. I believe we should make a country where one part is capitalist, and the other part communist, and the people have the right to choose which they want to be in. Also it should be something close to a rep. demo..

His writings on the dialectic are quite enticing and in my opinion amazing. His "solutions" and hypothesis on the next step in human history not so much.

it's hard the assess to more "practical" elements of marxism because marx wrote at a time when the economy and society was radically different from how it is now. most notably it was before the bismarkian welfare state. in the context of when he was writing i dont think he was awfully far off. of course the capitalist welfare state changed everything.

"I'll go," said Chagataev. "But what will I do there? Build socialism?"
"What else?" said the secretary.

Why? The rich enjoy anything and everything they want(capatlism) however support the poor (government communes) by ensuring everyone who needs/wants a job a job(that pays enough/ gets you enough stuff to support a family). Sounds like a perfect system to me, which would solve most crime/poverty.

No, that is intermixing the systems within one confind.
I mean literally having 2 different(the same law wise) societies, but one is capatlist, and the other is a capatalist support commune, all functioning under the same goverment, but abading in two different areas.

The singular reason we don't try something like this here is because of the media influence/the rich's power strangle on government and the people. They want to stay rich and not give up as much as they can not have to give up. doing something like this would probably run 10~15% added taxes on the rich and upper middle classes for atleast 5~10 years to get it fully operational, and then past that probably another 5% forever. Thats not something they want to give up to nearly eliminate crime and absolutely eliminate poverty(outside of people who just want to live in poverty(hobos ect.))

Because it's fucking retarded. A country under the same government and laws where the rich pay for a Communist society is still just plain socialism, even if all the rich Bourgeois live in the same geographic area. The rich are still being heavily taxed to support the poor. It doesn't matter where they live, the system you described is socialism.

it's hard the assess to more "practical" elements of marxism because marx wrote at a time when the economy and society was radically different from how it is now. most notably it was before the bismarkian welfare state. in the context of when he was writing i dont think he was awfully far off. of course the capitalist welfare state changed everything.

Yes, and whats wrong with socialism? It could easily, easily work without a dicatator in the equation.
Thats why i've been sure to say REP. DEMO. for the 3rd time. Mixing a rep. demo. with a socialistic society hasn't really been tried. Its always places where theres just a dictator.

Its also not the same, because in a socialistic society the rich are discouraged from making a bunch of shit, and so are the middle class and upper middle, because they are all under a commune. The value of products deminishes because there is no competition, however in a society that is not all socailised, the majority of people (the people not in poverty) would still enjoy the same level of goods and services, and the people in communes, would be able to not be in poverty anymore, but have to put up with a degraded quailty of goods and services.

Nothing really is WRONG with socialism it's just that you're talking like a crazy motherfucker and acting like you came up with a whole new idea. You're like me in third grade when I told my friend I wrote this song called Feeling This, which was a song I had just heard that day on the radio.

I'm acting like it's an idea that i came up with, because i did. On my own. With every media outlet saying its the definition of horrible ideas, when its never even been tried, and would totally make society 99% better. And people are saying its a terrible idea, without arguing agianst the actual idea.

Also, Socialism is not Capitalism mixed with Communism, Socialism is the system implemented directly after the "Communist revolution" in which private property is abolished and a more cooperative society is implemented. "Communism" is just the theoretical state of society that will emerge out of Socialism in which the state, as a whole, has been abolished. Y'all talkin' 'bout Democratic Socialism